Reply #137: I've been looking up accessory to murder and mens rea

[Turborama]

They both seem to cover Jones' admission of guilt....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)#United_States">'Accessory'- Legal Term in the US

Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting">Aiding and abetting

The U.S. criminal code makes aiding and abetting a federal crime itself a crime:

(a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.

A person may be convicted of aiding and abetting any act made criminal under the code. The elements of aiding and abetting are, generally:

(1) guilty knowledge on the part of the accused ( the mens rea);
(2) the commission of an offense by someone; and
(3) the defendant assisted or participated in the commission of the offense (the actus reus).

So I went and looked up mens rea and it seems his admission of guilt really would stand up in a court of law...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#United_States">Mens rea - United States

Title 18 of the United States Code does not have a culpability scheme but relies on more traditional definitions of crimes taken from common law. For example, malice aforethought is used as a requirement for committing capital murder.

Model Penal Code

Prior to the 1960s, mens rea in the United States was a very slippery, vague and confused concept. Since then, the formulation of mens rea set forth in the Model Penal Code has been highly influential throughout North America in clarifying the discussion of the different modes of culpability.

Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result.

Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.

Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware.

Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant.

There's also this, with regards to aiding and abetting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting">United States Code (U.S.C.), section two of title 18:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal

Where the term "principal" refers to any actor who is primarily responsible for a criminal offense.

For a successful prosecution, the provision of "aiding and abetting" must be considered alongside the crime itself, although a defendant can be found guilty of aiding and abetting an offense even if the principal is found not guilty of the crime itself. In all cases of aiding and abetting, it must be shown a crime has been committed, but not necessarily who committed it. It is necessary to show that the defendant has wilfully associated himself with the crime being committed, that he does, through his own act or omission, as he would do if he wished for a criminal venture to succeed. Under this statute, anyone who aids or abets a crime may be charged directly with the crime, as if the charged had carried out the act himself. This is distinct from the concept of being an accessory after the fact, a charge distinct from being a principal.

BTW this is an OT announcement but I wanted to share. I am now carrying out a zero tolerance campaign against Terry Jones apologists. Each and every single one of them that I see are instantly put on full Ignore, permanently. Safe to say that list has grown exponentially over the past 24 hours and I can see hardly any threads supporting him anymore.

I think what finally pushed me over the edge was seeing a valid comment someone made about how everyone (including myself) was up in arms when Giffords was shot and were, rightfully, casting blame on Palin et al but now this has happened suddenly everyone's jumping to Jones' defense. The comment that poster made was something along the lines of, "is it because they're Muslim now?" (I can PM you a link to it, if you'd like?)

I know you never do this but after all these months of it it is making me feel astonished and furious every time I come here and I've finally had enough and have decided to go for a big purge. I had a couple on before and I always knew who "Ignored" was, or at least could make a safe guess, and would sometimes take them off to see what they'd said. Now there are so many I really don't have a clue and going past the point of no return is more liberating than I thought it would be.

Thank goodness there are wonderful people like you who can handle it for longer than people like me.

:hi: :yourock:


I've come back to thoroughly recommend watching this. Ignore the title, the video itself has the best analysis I've seen so far: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x569488